Synthese 63 (3):275 - 294 (1985)
|Abstract||In this paper we sketch a logic of message and reply. The logic is intended for application in a wide variety of situations, not restricted to the two-person, turn-taking situation. Each message has a body and a vector; the vector specifies the from, to, and the like. To reply to a message, it suffices to give either (1) a complete reply to the body or (2) a corrective reply to at least one presumption derivable from the vector. We discuss the problems of achieving effectiveness and completeness with respect to certain aspects of communication. The results are mixed. In section 9 we argue semi-formally that, in a certain sense, dialogue is necessary. Finally we note that this logic is not a rival of other approaches but may be combinable with them.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John J. McDermott (2010). A Lost Horizon: Perils and Possibilities of the Obvious. The Pluralist 5 (2):1-17.
Matti Eklund & Daniel Kolak (2002). Is Hintikka's Logic First-Order? Synthese 131 (3):371 - 388.
David Harrah (1963). A Model for Applying Information and Utility Functions. Philosophy of Science 30 (3):267-273.
David Harrah (1986). Message Semantics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27 (3):339-348.
Annemarie Hula (1946). A Reply to the Message of Franz Werfel. Thought 21 (2):349-352.
Rohit Parikh & Ramaswamy Ramanujam (2003). A Knowledge Based Semantics of Messages. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (4):453-467.
Ronald Fagin & Joseph Y. Halpern (1988). I'm OK If You're OK: On the Notion of Trusting Communication. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 (4):329 - 354.
David Harrah (1984). A Logic of Message and Reply. Synthese 58 (2):275 - 294.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #131,747 of 722,929 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,929 )
How can I increase my downloads?